Outcalt v. Rankin
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Andrew Rankin brought an action of debt against John D. Outcalt, as endorser of a promissory note. It appears from the transcript of the justice, that on the return day of the summons “ the plaintiff appeared and filed his statement of demand; the defendant not appearing, but having admitted to me the plaintiff’s demand, on a preceding day, after the service of the summons,” he gave judgment for the plaintiff, for the amount of the note, with costs of suit.
Read the full summary
Andrew Rankin brought an action of debt against John D. Outcalt, as endorser of a promissory note. It appears from the transcript of the justice, that on the return day of the summons “ the plaintiff appeared and filed his statement of demand; the defendant not appearing, but having admitted to me the plaintiff’s demand, on a preceding day, after the service of the summons,” he gave judgment for the plaintiff, for the amount of the note, with costs of suit. The judgment and proceedings were removed into this court by certiorari, and Kirkpatrick moved to reverse the same. 1. Because the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
This is a suit brought by the endorsee against •the endorser of a promissory note. The defendant might admit the plaintiff’s demand, and yet not admit his own liability. This admission might apply to the execution of the note, and not to the legal demand of payment, and notice to the endorser. Besides the admission was made to the justice out of court, and before the return day of the summons, and to sanction this as legal evidence, would be to make the justice both judge and witness, without even the formality of an oath.
Judgment reversed.
Cited in Paterson v. Schenck, 3 Gr. 434.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Jones v. SewardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863